Slashdot Mirror
Google+ Photos To Shut Down August 1
An anonymous reader writes: Now that Google Photos exists separately from Google+, the company is shutting down the Google+ version of Photos starting on August 1. The Android version will be the first to go, followed shortly thereafter by the iOS and web versions. Fortune calls the old Photos app "a relic of the times when the search giant thought its social network Google Plus could become a huge hit."
Seriously - I feel like Google+'s only fan. The layout is far better than the alternatives. It doesn't give a false sense of security. It's much more in tune with my phone. It's easier to navigate. It's not flooded with fucking idiots. There are no ads. It supports animated gifs... the list just goes on and on and on. Why the hell did it not catch on like FB?
People argue that they "already have a social network" but that didn't stop them from leaving MySpace in favour of FB.
Now that we've split off Photos from Google+, let's split off the GPS support into a separate product, ok? Or maybe bundle it into Maps where it belongs? We could call it LATITUDE.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Google really stepped in shit with that stupid Google+.
Between the real name policy, which nobody wants, and everything trying to force you into it at very step ... I've basically spent the last few years fighting off Google+.
Nobody wanted another damned social network, and they sure as hell didn't want to be forced into using the damned thing by every one of Google's services.
I'm glad to see that it's finally being disentangled from everything else. Because it was a bloody nuisance.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I was excited when Google+ rolled out. That enthusiasm quickly dissipated when Google decided that no anonymous accounts would be tolerated. Their inability to understand how important it is for many people to be able to participate anonymously convinced me that this was not a platform that was going anywhere. Apparently, I wasn't the only person to feel this way.
Awesome job Google! You could have very likely created a real competitor to Facebook but instead orchestrated the internet version of New Coke.
Now that Google+ Photos is discontinued, Google Apps admins received a message which informs them that Google Hangouts will only use Picasa Web Albums for photo sharing.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.c...
I predict, based on past behavior, that Google Photos will be retired a year from now, maybe two.
I find that many people have gotten hesitant to trust using products and services from Google or Microsoft because both of them tend to start projects, promote it to death, and then decide to suddenly drop it one day.
Why the hell did it not catch on like FB?
Because nearly everybody was already on Facebook and Facebook gave them no reason to move that they cared about. Look up network effect if you need a more detailed explanation. Plus Google was more than a little pushy about G+ early on which didn't enhance the appeal. Nobody likes to feel forced into something.
People argue that they "already have a social network" but that didn't stop them from leaving MySpace in favour of FB.
People will leave if they have sufficient reason. Myspace was sort of focused on music and entertainment which is fine but not diverse and perhaps a bit too narrow. It's ties to News Corp probably didn't help and it didn't innovate nearly enough. They probably chased the money too quickly. Wikipedia has a decent overview of what happened.
What's Google Photos?
which in his Halcyon Days had more users than G+ will ever have. Racial discrimination doomed it [all those horrible Brazilians and Indians...]
With the recent update, Google broke Chromecast support for Google+ photos. The biggest thing I liked about Google+ photos was that I could share the pictures and videos on my Chromecast. Of course, they did not add Chromecast support for the updated photos app.
While not everyone agreed with the "integration" of accounts, I am absolutely amazed at the number of services on which Google has dismantled the good parts. Google has created some pretty neat things over the years and they still are innovating. But for the life of me, I can't shake the feeling that some part of Google's management team likes self mutilation.
Being "anonymous" on a "social network". I know plenty of people who have "fake" accounts, and everyone knows who they are, they aren't fooling anyone.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Are you kidding?
G+ beats F-book hands down. G+ doesn't make sure that the shitbags' political/religous nonsense get posted to the top of my feed. With G+ I get exactly what I want without the douschebaggery of F-book.
It's probably got a bit of "sour grapes" to it. No one liked their cool toy, so, in order to show us all how wrong we were about the toy being a stinking pile of shit, they're going to get rid of it BUT ALSO damage the toys we liked as they do so. That should show us.
I liked G+. I thought the control they had and the interface was vastly superior to anything else I'd seen.
I wanted more than circles. Intersections would have been nice.
Example: Maybe I only want to post to people who are in both car guys and friends circles.
The killer for me, even though it was 100% optional and not necessary in any way, was the "Nearby" feature on the mobile app.
I was completely shocked at how stupid people are and the stupid stuff they would post. I was so incredibly tempted to respond to these people but decided in so many ways it wasn't worth it. I deleted my account and decided social networking wasn't for me.
My use of G+ now caters for what slashdot provides. I hardly know anyone in person, but being subscribed to a few groups I get better tailored 'news for nerds' and a wider range of news too.
Also, G+ isn't shutting down, just being separated with photos.
Handing your data - images, audio, video, stories, whatever - over to another entity to maintain them, in the "cloud" or in the normal context of a service such as flickr or Google+ Photos, means that you may lose that data, and/or control of that data, at any time, at the whim of the entity holding that data.
Best to archive your data yourself, and only use these service to create an accessible "thing" where others can get at it in whatever ways you see fit. After you carefully read the terms of service, unless you really don't care what happens to your creative output.
Especially watch out for Google: they have a history of really nasty behavior with images. In the case of Google base, they won't let you put your mark on any image you supply for products you make or resell. So you completely lose control of the images you have taken, using your environment and setup (imagine an R/C car shown rock climbing) and once uploaded, you are just as likely to see it used in an ad for a competitor as you are in your own ad. In fact, if the competitor has bought more page views than you have, it can be shown in their ads more than it is in yours. And for this? You get nothing. No one will even have a clue that it is your image, and not your competitor's.
Google is also the company that decided that as a commercial entity, it could copy any and all the books it wanted, again without compensation or acknowledgement of author / illustrator rights.
Just be careful. Know what you're getting into before you click "OK." No matter who or what you're hooking into your creative output. The assumption that the other party will do "the right thing" can be pretty far off the mark; you need to clearly understand the difference, if any, between what you define as the right thing and what they define as the right thing.
That is all.
If this is true, why has FB's change in policy not been a huge black eye?
a relic of the times when the search giant thought its social network Google Plus could become a huge hit.
A relic from way back... like, 2014 A.D.
It's worth noting that Picasaweb pre-dates Google+. In fact when they made the photos section of G+, they just copied Picasaweb's front-end, and dumbed it down to a Facebook level. The back-end was still the same so you could post albums on Google+, and still edit/modify them on Picasaweb (with a lot more options than the G+ interface). So in that respect, absolutely nothing has changed.
Yeah that makes sense. If there is one thing a large mega-corporation is likely to do, it's valuing pride over profit.
It might be too little too late, but this policy was reverted.
Thats it, Im moving back to http://pictureweb.com/ !
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
absolutely brilliant logic. i'm assuming you don't bother locking your car or your house because .01% of the polulation can break the lock? I'm not one of those .01%. can I get your address please?
No. It isn't the same. Vaccines serve to reduce everyone's risk. Your immunity helps the little baby next door who is too young to vaccinate, and the lady down the street who is allergic to albumen or whatever. Then there's herd immunity -- once a certain proportion of an inter-social group are immune, it becomes much more difficult for a disease to really get any momentum going, and that helps everyone. We share our air, and it's very worthy that we don't share it in such a way that is dangerous insofar as we can avoid it.
Vaccination is a very, very good thing. Intentionally avoiding vaccination when vaccination is possible is an act of aggression -- or stupidity.
The only reason it's being "shoved" down people's throats is because there are clueless idiots (cough/Jenny McCarthy/cough) out there spreading dangerous unscientific nonsense and fomenting unrest with regard to this in any way they can. People were not getting vaccinated who definitely should have been getting vaccinated. It was bad for everyone. So, just as we don't let idiots take a crap on the sidewalks even if they might like to, we aren't going to let idiots (or their children) become transmission vectors for disease, either.
Buck up and go get stuck, and encourage everyone you know to do so as well. It's the right thing to do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!
Facebook hate was around by the time G+ was released. Had they simply released an Ad-free, private clone of FB it would taken the world by storm.
Google can't do that. Google makes well over 90% of its revenue from ads and almost everything they do supports that engine. Android was simply a defensive play to keep them from getting locked out of the mobile ad markets by Apple, Microsoft and others. Maps is a play for location sensitive advertising. Gmail is a way of mining personal communications for data. Aside from a few research projects (like cars and robots) pretty much everything Google does is to help them throw more ads your way.
Now Facebook has ads too but to your point nobody really cares if it is Google or Facebook throwing ads their way. If both are doing it there is no reason to switch. Google needed to make G+ something life enhancing. Something that provided extra value over what they already had. Nobody is going to switch to G+ when all their friends are on Facebook unless G+ offers something pretty amazing that Facebook doesn't have. I have no idea what that might be but clearly neither did Google.
The other big mistake Google made was the branding was confusing. They must have taken a page from .NET and java regarding how to make the product as difficult to understand as possible. G+ was/is more than just a Facebook clone but it wasn't especially clear exactly what it was or why we should care. They got too clever with it and confused all their potential customers. Plus they didn't respect the fact that people already think Google knows too much about them.
Well, other than the idiotic "invite only" policy?
Google's field trial lasted three months, after which it opened to the public. When Facebook started, only college students were eligible, and this lasted ten times as long as Google's field trial.
Now all they need to do is make Google+ a completely separate service to everything else. I shouldn't need to have a G+ account just to use YouTube.
The comparative lengths of the two field trials is quite possibly the stupidest and most irrelevant thing you can bring up - because they occurred against completely different backgrounds.
If you are posting "Private" or "Personal" stuff on social networks, you're the fool. And you're not fooling anyone.
Ever heard of "Screen Capture" and "Revenge sites"? Yeah, you're "private" life isn't as private as you think it is.
But you do have one advantage, most people don't really care about your dick pics or whatever.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
so, your reply is just more random information you jizz all over the place, which has nothing to do with what you are replying to. this usually comes from people who have issues being social, and hence lack social skills. they're not very outgoing, and not used to having a conversation with anyone but themselves, because they're losers and just don't have anyone to talk to. what you said is true, absolutely. it just has zero to do with what you replied to.
you - even when using a fake name, it's possible to get your personal info
me - yes, but not for pretty much everyone on the social network - just for a very small number of people who know what they're doing, so it's perfect for blocking an hr drone googling your name
you - ever heard of screen readers - yeah, it's absolutely possible.
have fun talking to yourself. it's depressing being a loser - isn't it? not very popular with the ladies? annoying to most people around you, but thinking it's because you're "just too smart?" nah, it's because you're just an annoying loser.